Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The essay by SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) and Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs) is a misuse of Wikipedia pages under WP:POLEMIC and by targeting minority gender identity fails to meet the requirements of WP:Harassment, WMF:Non-discrimination_policy and the websites WMF:Terms of Use, as it attacks and defames minority groups. The article is written as a joke, but is clearly intended to marginalize and disparage transgender, nonbinary or genderqueer readers and Wikipedians.

Wikipedia essays and the Signpost are not free speech forums to publish what to most readers will be deliberately transphobic rhetoric, even if those words are wrapped in a "joke" format. --Fæ (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: Recommend this discussion applies automatically to the userspace essay discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SMcCandlish/It --Fæ (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: Due to Barbara (WVS) having a sexuality related topic ban, they may be unable to comment here as the Signpost essay itself (may or may not fall under) the TBAN for which their account has been blocked unblocked. Refer to WP:ANI#Violation_of_topic_ban_by_Barbara_(WVS). (Updated, again) --Fæ (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• I don't know if it warrants deletion but I would like to see a strong public response along these lines. We can and should discuss this sensitive issue without venom and rancor; this op-ed doesn't do that. ElKevbo (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I'm not sure if deletion would be appropriate. It did manage to get into the Signpost, a publication just about important enough to have its own Wikipedia article, so it does have some additional importance that the usual oddly genderqueer-phobic/transphobic essay wouldn't have. On the other hand, it is also not very tasteful and nowhere near funny enough to deserve thousands of Signpost readers' time, and if it gets deleted it can be viewed from a safe distance inside the Internet Archive. Jc86035 (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  As a thought experiment, if someone were to write a similar jolly funny article which derided and marginalized, say Jewish religious customs by making fun of the way they dress, or poked fun at African-Americans because their ancestors might have been slaves to white people, do you really think that the Wikipedians that were using this project's resources to publish it, would not be instantly blocked, and probably end up globally banned? Exactly why are LGBT+ people any different, or deserve less respect and dignity? --Fæ (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Fæ: I really don't know. It was run past several other editors before its publication. Would it be considered revisionist to pretend its publication never happened? (The article's talk page would also probably be deleted under this nomination without further clarification, because of CSD G8.) Jc86035 (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  There is a clear next step, hopefully unnecessary, of asking WMF Legal to intervene. Though they will resist appearing to change encyclopedic content or legitimate discussion, an "humorous" essay which attacks a protected minority group, does have specific legal implications as well as being counter to existing WMF operational policy. No doubt this was missed in prior discussion before publication. --Fæ (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Are you seriously invoking Wikipedia:No legal threats or did you mean to suggest that this situation is some kind of exception to it? – Athaenara ✉ 17:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Tangent: Asking WMF Legal to look at a Signpost article as being in breach of WMF policy, is not a legal threat by anyone's logical interpretation. Nobody is asking the WMF to start a civil action, neither would they be interested if someone tried. By the way, in light of your other comment about me here, if you raise another question for me, I'll be calling you a Crybully; seems fair. --Fæ (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you clarify what "specific legal implications" would need to be brought to the attention of WMF Legal? —DIYeditor (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Tangent: It's unnecessary, so no, hypotheticals and wiki lawyering is pointless. If it gives anyone comfort, WMF employees are following this discussion, possibly due to interest in how improved community policies can be seen to be working or not, but the default and best position is always to give our volunteer community every opportunity to govern itself and the WMF are not our police, we are. --Fæ (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely crystal clear so you don't do this in the future, Wikipedia is a US-based project and there are no limitations on criticizing protected classes in any way in the US. In fact that is absolutely contrary to US law and to the principles of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not censored. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

If you scroll down a bit from WP:NOTCENSORED, you'll also find WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Wikipedia "restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 03:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course we as the Wikipedia community should restrict things that abuse other members and this is a clear example. Do not insult other editors! My concern was specifically the legal threat which is totally empty. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me you're considering yourself exempt from standard Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I can't approve of that. – Athaenara ✉ 17:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Tangent: No, I'm not exempt from anything, neither are crybullies. If you write anything else, could it be about the nomination? You can write about me on my talk page, if you wish. --Fæ (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

It's possibly not technically a legal threat, but "does have specific legal implications" is obviously meant to feel like one. It's not Fæ threatening direct legal action, but telling us that they're actively trying to get WMF to take legal action (which of course is nonsensical, since nothing illegal or unlawful has transpired). This is an example of what WP:SANCTIONGAMING was written about: trying to "get away with it" on a technicality. We have WP:NLT not because laws and courts and attorneys are an evil, but because clubbing people over the head with legalistic FUD and WP:DRAMA is inimical to an open and good-faith-assumptive editorial community.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Couldn't be more plain that does have specific legal implications combined with asking WMF Legal to intervene is a legal threat. "Asking WMF legal to intervene" sounds a lot like "warning WMF legal that WMF is breaking the law". Why else would "WMF legal" be relevant unless Wikipedia is alleged to be breaking the law? The statement should be amended or retracted, or brought to ANI same as any other legal threat. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but am not interested in pursuing that (or the canvassing, or the harassment across three WMF sites so far). It's not worth the drama. I'm not offended that people have different sensitivity levels, even to the point of believing that humor cannot possible come anywhere near some subjects for any reason. Reasonable people can disagree, though this is edging toward not-reasonable. That said, I'm pretty sure I've seen something like this (i.e., politicized targeting of an editor with WP:ASPERSIONS of X-phobia) from Fæ before, and suspect that this may be habitual. I don't have the diffs or time to examine it for a pattern, though, and am averse to such diff-digging anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Tangent: Try sticking to the nomination. If you want to haphazardly take a poke because I was the one to create this page, you know where my talk page is. You can see that an Arbcom member has commented here, so you could always approach them for advice on how to request a transgender related case, rather than using this MfD to make pointless personal attacks, I'm sure they will be interested. Given that your unfunny "joke" has been objected to by multiple well established and respected self identified trans and queer contributors, there is plenty of good advice written here that you appear to be unable to take on board. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

"Be careful what you wish for." Here's at least some of what I was thinking of: Fæ was indefinitely banned in 2012 for sexuality-related battlegrounding, most pertinently "ad hominem attacks to try to discredit others" (e.g., trying to label people "transphobic"). This was softened into a topic ban from "sexuality, broadly construed" (including gender identity matters) from 2012 to mid-2017 (suspended from Dec. 2016). If DIYeditor's ANI suggestion were followed through, a reinstatement of that topic ban would be the likely outcome, especially since the original case also involved canvassing of the same sort, and Fæ was at WP:RFARB again only a couple of weeks ago, also for canvassing in support of gender-related battlegrounding, though ArbCom remanded the matter back to the community for further discussion and examination. That may be overdue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Tangent: Resurrecting a case from over 7 years ago as evidence of, something, maybe nothing? Again, you know where my talk page is if you want to keep on making personal attacks and throwing mud. This MfD is about the nomination and the article you co-wrote with Barbara Page, not about me, me, me, the nominator. --Fæ (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not a case from over 7 years ago. It started that long ago, but it concluded – and only provisionally – in mid-2017. Given that the behavior you were banned for has not stopped or even changed, it's extremely pertinent. The ban was lifted with a clear understanding that the activities that resulted in it would not recur. So, I would surmise that you have very little time left to right your ship. If you continue in this vein, someone less averse to drama than me will certainly ANI or AE or RFARB you in your next "week of outburst" or the one after it, using all the evidence of the aspersions, canvassing, legal threats, etc. from this instance too (and all three of those were aspects of your original ban, so a re-ban is a dead certainty). PS: I have no idea why you keep putting "Tangent:" in front of things. You must have noticed by now that this isn't a wiki-talk norm and no one else is picking up your lead, so it will not become one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Tangent: Attacking the nominator, rather than addressing the nomination is a tangent. You know exactly what you are doing. --Fæ (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

You've attacked SMcCandlish across several pages now with deeply personal and hurtful aspersions. You need to stop. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't know if you meant to, but you raise an interesting point about capitalizing "it". Re. your second sentence: How does one know if the "It" at the beginning pertains to the personal pronoun or the regular "it"? Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  15:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

One would perhaps boldface? Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is for the deletion of the defamatory essay. If you want to chat about the best grammatical use of personal pronouns, try WT:MOS rather than creating tangents. If you are making jokes about personal pronouns, do it off-wiki, it's not constructive here. --Fæ (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Or else Fæ may follow you, too, from site to site and try to gin up a pogrom against you. LOL.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Tangent: With the excuse that I have asked the WMF to reconsider your suitability to be recognized and trusted as a WMF Technical Ambassador because of your published transphobic "jokes", you now compare your self-victimhood to the historic massacre of Russian Jews. Your use of "LOL" seems inappropriate when you are digging a deeper hole for yourself by being ever more offensive to even more people who might read this. Please keep in mind you are not using an anonymous account, what you are writing is literally stupid. --Fæ (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Or perhaps you're just unaware that words in English have multiple meanings, and their senses shift over time (e.g. wikt:draconic, etc.). I don't buy this act for a minute though; no fluent English speaker can actually be ignorant of this. You're simply "high on outrage" and trying to WP:WIN at all costs. These kinds of ad hominem outbursts are precisely why you've been topic-banned from all gender and sexuality material for much of your editing history here. I predict that the ban will reinstated soon unless your approach changes. You may find this page helpful.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Specifically because it is in the Signpost, ostensibly the official publication of enwiki, and deleting it would remove any implicit endorsement of its contents by enwiki. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The Signpost has no offical standing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. Unless I'm reading something wrong, the essay is about biographies, while the policies linked in the nom are talking about the relationship between editors. wumbolo ^^^ 15:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You do appear to be reading something wrong, POLEMIC states "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia", i.e. a misuse of Wikipedia pages to make jokes about the respectful way to handle pronouns for nonbinary or genderqueer people. The essay opens with "SMcCandlish, hereby declares Its personal pronoun to be It", clearly this is a Wikipedia editor talking about themselves on Wikipedia, not just about BLPs or MOS in the abstract. --Fæ (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete though I don't really expect this to actually get deleted. How is this funny? The only way I can see that this could be considered "funny" is by way of pointing and laughing at non-binary/trans people. Which isn't great. I know people can be put off by nonstandard gender pronoun preferences, and that whether there's a social or moral obligation to honor those preferences is "controversial", and that there can reasonably be a *hypothetical* upper limit to the burden that one can be expected to bear due to others' preferences, but it's not a laughing matter, and jokes like this or the attack helicopter meme are in bad taste, to say the least. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  Well what would you say if a user made a gender userbox for their own page that lists their gender as attack helicopter and preferred pronoun as "it"? —DIYeditor (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete I love Barbara's work and I look forward to more of her humor but this one should be deleted. We all make mistakes on what seems funny to us without realizing that it may demean another - Ive done it myself from time to time and I have been corrected for it. Gandydancer (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete the polemical parts per nom, neutral on the MOS-related stuff. wumbolo ^^^ 15:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  Delete all on second thought actually. There is no opinion about the MOS here worth salvaging (unless SMcCandlish decides to rewrite it all, something I do not oppose), and the most useful part of the essay is the part where it straw mans minority gender identities as some BS to make the point that Wikipedia articles should only use he and she, because that is the only logical conclusion from the essay. However, I don't think that the essay is illegal or anything like that. Also, WMF's policies linked above and below don't apply to style guidelines. Humour may well demean people, but it shouldn't be used to promote personal viewpoints and non-arguments. Or maybe this is really a WP:CREEP essay discussing the nonexistent problem of alien pronouns on WP. That NO transgender or genderqueer editor found the essay funny is telling.wumbolo ^^^ 22:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• I have also nominated Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SMcCandlish/It for deletion. Jc86035 (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - it's satire, which is best when it takes an extreme position. It reframes an argument and can inspire cooperation between opposing viewpoints by establishing some common ground. It's the reverse-psychology equivalent to a "slippery slope" argument that makes people think about where the metaphorical ledge is. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  A satire of what? Of people's gender identity? If this is satire, like of over-enforcement of MOS:GENDERID or something--not that that MOS:GENDERID is necessarily a worthy target of satire either--then it's missing context, which is like the most important part of satire. There is no context for this other than "people with nonstandard pronoun preferences (i.e. non-binary or trans people)", so it's just making fun of people who are non-binary/trans. If this is satire, it's a very bad example of it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  A satire of the way MOS:IDENTITY and WP:ABOUTSELF are enforced. The context is provided at the bottom of the article, starting with the line "All of the above..." Argento Surfer (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  More specifically, it's a satire about community doubts about whether we should have IDENTITY and ABOUTSELF say what they say, instead of leaning more heavily toward what subjects prefer, all the way down to made-up words, which in turn opens the door to religious phrasing demands, to an expectation of "respecting" logo stylizations, and etc., etc. Some slippery slopes are actually slippery. Any time our guidelines and policies budge a little to make one group happy, everyone else wants their "pet" exception, too. We're just not going to make an exception for neologistic pronouns, no matter how often/loud a handful of people demand them (or, more often, try the WP:CIVILPOV tactic of quietly "slow-editwarring" them into articles like Genesis P-Orridge and various others). Our encyclopedic job is to record the subject's preference, if it's reliably sourceable; not to use it in Wikipedia's own voice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  That's fine as an intention, I guess, but that's not what you wrote. If you were trying to satirize a) fake pronouns like zie and hirm, b) unusual trademark stylizations, and c) excessive honorifics, you should've, y'know, actually used one of those three things. (The choice of A instead of B or C still would've been pretty tasteless: the other two would've been just as effective for satire without the potential for (mis)interpretation of transphobia. But that's a different story.) But you didn't; you instead used the existing word "it". I know you said you did that deliberately, but the effect that had on the writing was to divorce your satire from "neologistic" pronouns, because "it" isn't one. Regardless of your intent, the words of the essay are more closely related to people who use the singular "they"--like "it", a pre-established pronoun that is non-standard when referring to a single human being--than it does to unusual trademark styling. That's why it's being read as transphobic: the satire of those three things is completely lost, since they're not actually used or satirized. Similarly, couching it in the language of gender-nonconformity (has come out as), strengthens the transphobic connection; it makes it sound like you're mocking the people that use that language, not the people who would write about them on Wikipedia. Moreover, for something that purports to be about Wikipedia editing, the piece doesn't actually directly talk about editing Wikipedia; it talks about the written form generally, not Wikipedia specifically, and also the spoken word, too, which has no relevance to Wikipedia. If you were trying to satirize Wikipedia editing, you should've specifically talked about Wikipedia editing. Something like an essay styled as a new MOS guideline about editing Wikipedia to conform to a hypothetical company's wacky trademark stylings, including stuff like extensive code changes to allow it in article titles or whatever, might have been an effective satire. This isn't.

  A Modest Proposal is a tired comparison, so let me give you a different one: it would be as if Pangloss, instead of being specifically a Leibnizian optimist, was a general rationalist in the style of Descartes, never using phrases like "the best of all possible worlds", yet one was still supposed to get that it's a satire of specifically Leibnizian optimism. Like, yeah, it could still work I guess, and Pangloss would still be kinda related to what Voltaire was talking about, but without being given the context of "best of all possible worlds" as juxtaposition of the suffering in the book, it's not going to read like satire of a specific philosophical position; it's gonna just read like torture porn. The context is important, and your choice not to actually use what you're satirizing means the essay misses the context to make it an effective satire. And without the satire, it just reads like a transphobic screed, because that's all that's left. I'll take you at your word that that wasn't what you meant, but that was what you wrote; it's not willful misinterpretation. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  Satire is best when it "punches up" and is used by the disadvantaged or discriminated against group to take down those who are holding them down. When it goes the other way, when it is being used by someone who lacks the disadvantage or who comes from a position of power and acceptance, when it involves "punching down", it's just cruelty. The difference is between the humor Richard Pryor and Blackface minstrel shows; to call the two equivalent because each deals with one race making fun of another is to miss the very real and very different power dynamic. In the case of this essay, it comes off as picking on a severely disadvantaged and discriminated against group; the transgender community. It minimizes the real harm being done to transgender people by those who consistently deny their own reality. Simply put: satire by the majority against those who are in the oppressed group is not funny. Because it's a tool of maintaining the oppression. Yes, you are free to do it. But freedom of speech is a two way street, and that means I am also free to call you out on your bullshit. --Jayron32 17:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete While I'm usually the first to argue that MOS:GENDERID is often taken too far in disregarding the pronouns used in contemporary reliable sources, this isn't the right way to advance the debate. This "humor" piece is just mean spirited and has no place on a public-facing Wikipedia page. It isn't funny, and only serves to further marginalize part of the Wikipedia community. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 16:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Incredibly offensive and disrespectful rant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.194.26 (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - an inappropriate use of the Signpost and in this queer editor's opinion, in incredibly poor taste, if not a violation of the TOU. The nom also makes an excellent point about WP:POLEMIC. (And I so rarely agree with Fae, so I suppose it's working to bring opposing viewpoints together...!) Keilana (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Saddened that anyone involved in this 'humour' thought it was a good idea. The very definition of punching down, when we should be putting our efforts into welcoming more contributors, not making people feel unwelcome. Sam Walton (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Those who wrote and allowed this to be published in the Signpost should be ashamed of themselves. Making fun of a group of people who are already on the receiving end of a lot of harassment and violence both online and off does not make for a lighthearted humor piece, it makes for yet another example of how Wikipedia is not a safe place for members of those groups to participate. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I would normally be hesitant to interfere with any publication's editorial independence, but in the community-based context of Wikipedia, I think it's appropriate for users to override such a clear error in editorial judgement, and this incident needs to be a wake-up call. - Sdkb (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm trans, I tend to go by "they". It's really fun to have WP's cis contingent aggressively mocking my identity. Sorry, did I say fun? I meant it's offensive. -- a. ^{get in the spam hole | get nosey} 17:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. It's funny enough, fairly well-crafted satire, and serves as attractive bait to bring the humorless out of the shadows, hell-bent on depriving the normal average human of an opportunity to laugh. The nominator seems determined to buttonhole and pin down every editor who deems the thing worth keeping, so I suppose I'll be accosted too. Ho hum. (I guess this isn't the forum to ask why there isn't a Crybully article yet.) – Athaenara ✉ 17:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I recall why now, it's because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I know any of us could create a {{Soft redirect}} to Wiktionary ("a person who engages in intimidation, harassment, or other abusive behaviour while claiming to be a victim"), but it would be provocative in the context of this raging storm, so I won't. – Athaenara ✉ 18:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Writing this as a nonbinary person who sometimes makes small edits to the projects: read the last line of this [1] if there's any doubt about the point of the essay. I will not vote, since I am apparently one of the persons targeted by the text. -- ArielGlenn (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  The essay doesn't "target" any "persons", it criticizes failure to distinguish between a) annotating, with sources, what a subject's preferences and usage are, and b) using them as Wikipedia's own usage. So, yes, your link does sum up the point, though you seem to have inferred what you felt like inferring from it instead of what it actually says.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per Galobtter, Sdkb and ArielGlenn's comments (as well as my comments above). Jc86035 (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Blank or delete. If I'm being honest, I think this could have been written to be funny if it had, say, focused on stage names and WP:COMMONNAME concepts ("My stagename is 'The President of the United States'"), honorifics, or trademarks, as suggested in the nutshell. That could've been funny. That did not happen and this is not that. This is a series of cruel potshots making light of marginalized individuals, many of which are part of our community. Even using "it" as the "joke" enforces the dehumanizing impact of such a thing. This is bad and should be removed. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. I would support their editorial independence if there was any evidence of editorial judgement. Gamaliel (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Feel free to delete the Signpost thing. [Update: The talk page of it has meaningful discussion, however. Maybe some other solution is better, like removing it from the Signpost ToC?] It wasn't intended for that venue, but someone who edits it wanted to include it. I had my misgivings, predicting that various of the too-easily-offended would willfully misinterpret it, which is exactly what's happened. It wasn't transphobic in the faintest. You all utterly missed the point. It's about Wikipedia editors engaging in language-change activism trying to push non-mainstream stylistic strangeness, including a) fake pronouns like zie and hirm, b) unusual trademark stylizations, and c) excessive honorifics. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the off-site usage or the values of those who engage in it. It's about and only about encyclopedic usage. If you want to go change WP:MOS to say "It's okay to exactly mimic the appearance of logos, to write of Jesus and Mohammad with "Our Lord" and "Peace Be Upon Him" before and after (respectively) their names, to inject made-up pronoun shenanigans like ze and xir into our articles", well, good luck with that. Never going to happen.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC); updated 19:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no debate here, your op-ed is a transphobic polemic. Your next step would have best to have been an honest apology, not to defend your actions and go on to offensively compound them by comparing nonbinary pronouns to using "Our Lord".

That's enough, you have have nailed your colours to the mast. If you want to keep on publishing disruptive transphobic misinformation, please do it a long way away from Wikimedia projects. --Fæ (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

You just ran afoul of #11 on this list from another Signpost article today. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, in Fæ's WP:HOUNDING of me from site to site, they been using the same sort of "no discussion can happen because I say so" stuff (which is remarkably similar in spirit to what I was criticizing in the essay: "You have to write it like Foo because I/we say so"). See, e.g., Meta:Talk:Tech/Ambassadors#SMcCandlish, in which they're trying make trouble for me in one of my technical roles because of their political disagreements with something they imagine I said but which isn't what I actually said (Fæ also outed my full name over there, which I don't use at that site; I've since redacted it). And it continues, now on Wikipedia-L; as someone noted below, this constitutes WP:CANVASSing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Enforcing compliance with the WMF Code of Conduct correctly on Meta, is not "hounding". Please correct your misgendering of me, unless this is a "joke" you intend to defend and are trying to make into another pointy problem. See User:Fæ/Userboxes/me or read my user page. --Fæ (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

You're just forum shopping. There is no code of conduct violation. If one were determined to have transpired, then you'd have a case, but not for what you're doing (interfering with a technical role I have at another site). Apologies for any mis-gendering; what should it be corrected to? I simply saw someone else use "she" and continued with it. I'll use "they" in the interim.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Given language doesn't appear to be result from physics in what way are any of the pronouns we use not made up?©Geni (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

As opposed to the naturally-occurring pronouns "he" and "her"? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hand-smelted from ore fresh from the gender mines, versus these counterfeit lab-synthesized pronounts that the scary queers wear. I'm so tired of re-hashing this with people. :( -- a. ^{get in the spam hole | get nosey} 18:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

MOS:NEO. It's nothing to do with how queer someone is, but how well-accepted something is in mainstream English. Singular they is, fortunately, making a strong comeback. MOS doesn't yet explicitly say to use it, but it's only a matter of time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Nuke it till it glows then curse it in the dark Look there are a lot of issues around how to handle pronouns but this is the worst possible way to address that.©Geni (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Signpost goes out as an announcement on watchlists. Imagine being a new nonbinary editor and clicking that. EponineBunnyKickQueen (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone else. Transphobic rants have no place on Wikipedia, and that's exactly what this is. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - If the uploader wants to express a view that could be read in a specfic ideological way (however unintended), there are more appropriate forums and ways to do it. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• This page has been subject to serious canvassing: [2]. The behaviour by certain participants in this thread has been reprehensible. Please abide by civility norms, do not make personal attacks even against people you strongly disagree with, and certainly never make legal threats. (That said, delete per author request. I do not agree with the other arguments in favor of deletion.) --Yair rand (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • As a person who has !voted delete, I will confirm that I was not canvassed; I received my Signpost notification, read the article in question, saw the discussion below, came back in an hour and saw the deletion discussion, and chose to express my view on the ideal future of the article. While I do think the essay is transphobic and repulsive, I agree with you that the person involved in the link you posted took it too far. This incident is bad, but not so bad as to warrant such drastic measures. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • For the record, I don't (yet?) feel personally attacked. People can get emotional about things, especially when they're having difficulty distinguishing between what something says and what someone imagines it might have said if they squint funny and imagine the worst (so, yes, there is a WP:AGF failure happening). If anyone thinks I'm actually transphobic, they're just very mistaken. A "failure" to buy into every idea ever advanced by anyone on one side of an issue does not transmogrify into opposition to everyone on that side of the issue. (Not absorbing this is what causes the left to splinter so much.) Disagreement over a doctrinal issue like "thou shalt write zirm if the subject uses that pronoun" is mistaken for hatred of people who use zirm or hatred of those about whom someone might use zirm, and these are patently fallacious assumptions which are usually wrong.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep When someone holds up a funhouse mirror, it might be smart to note that the distortions are, well, distorted. It’s when you complain about the mirror part that it becomes a problem. Yes, it’s a little unpleasant to realize that the whole world doesn’t accept our own self-conceptions as fact. Get over it. Qwirkle (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep as the over the top histrionics about this demonstrate a total lack of perspective. Besides the irony of who's passing judgment on "editorial judgment", it's a website. And frankly, being someone who has an ASD (the terminology is FUBAR with the new DSM) there are constant references to the autistic tendencies of Wikipedia editors; unleashing my autistic screeching to demand people delete anything daring to express it would be prudish in the extreme, to say nothing of killing off some on-point and well-earned humor. "Harassment" and "marginalization"? Seriously? It's satire. Grow up. (And my personal views are irrelevant, I've expressed them elsewhere but will not now, and spare me efforts to infer them) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Retract ideally and mark as historical to document the fuckup, but this is an option that's only available to the Signpost editors User:Kudpung and User:Bri. But failing that, delete. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Retraction seems preferable over deletion, for the documentation reason (even though it is already on archive.org). It seems User:Bri is not willing to take that path; has User:Kudpung weighed in? - Sdkb (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete While I certainly understand humor and appreciate distorted realities to give us a nudge, I have an objection to humor against marginalized groups. Transgender and non-binary people are being under pressure and discriminated against everywhere and their suicide rate is over the roof, don't make it worse for them. Let me give you an example, imagine a transgender person who was kicked of her parents' house because she came out to them and said "I prefer pronoun 'she'". Now, she's homeless and extremely depressed. Then she saw this page. How that's going to help her if not making it worse? Ladsgroup^overleg 19:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  This, exactly, is what I meant by lack of perspective. How important do you really think this obscure backwater of Wikipedia is that it'll have any effect, either way, on someone undergoing that kind of trauma? The world isn't censored, plus there's a chance that someone actually might get the true point of this even without the author's answer key above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  • @The Blade of the Northern Lights: an obscure backwater of Wikipedia? The Signpost is plastered on several thousands of user pages on the English Wikipedia alone. Plus emails, RSS feeds, Global delivery list, those who read it via watchlists, as well as Twitter, Facebook, and possibly other venues too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

    You take this page far too seriously. That it's there doesn't mean more than a tiny percent of people click through to actually view it. It's obscure, and no matter how puffed-up editors get about their work on Wikipedia it's pretty clear No One Outside Really Cares. Besides, it's less of a burden to not feel self-importance attached to my work on Wikipedia. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

    By that logic, it's OK to mock gay vanuatuans because they make up a tiny percent of the world. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

    Swing and a miss. Not even close. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

    For perspective, the last month's humor column received a total of 2,151 views over the course of a month. It peaked on the day of release with about 260 views. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

    Blade, while your points are sound, the 2nd order effects of the decision on this page could indeed significantly impact on the many LGBT+ youth struggling with suicidal thoughts and depression. Precedent and attitude among wikipedians helps determine content policies, which in turn govern the content & form of our main space article, which influences the media, which influences attitudes among the general public, and hence the degree of acceptance or traumatic prejudice experienced by LGBT+ . Most especially the +, who are still a frontier case.

Interesting even Trans were on said frontier as little as 5 years ago – and that has changed thanks to Wikipedians. Contrary to the opinion of some, history shows its not always the case that Wikipedia needs to follow the Media – sometimes we lead it. With the Chelsea Manning case, while we needed to wait until the media settled on respecting her choice of name before we had lasting consensus to do so ourselves, it was also Wikipedia which to a degree drove the change of use in the world's media. This was thanks to the heroic actions of certain editors. They boldly changed the name of Chelsea's article at a time when the vast majority of the media were still using her deadname. As you know Journalists often check Wikipedia before writing on a hot topic. Seeing that we were respecting her choice of name & pronoun, they began to follow suite. Traditionalists managed to get the name changed back, but the heroic editors had defended the change long enough for irreversible momentum to develop in worldwide media. The names and deeds of Morwen, Josh Gorand and Steven Gerald will never be forgotten. By the time the matter went to Arbcom, it was almost too easy to get a progressive ruling, as otherwise Wikipedia would have been to the right even of the Daily Mail and part of Fox. It will be a while before its feasible for us to get a similar result for intersex/non binary/gender fluid, but hopefully the time is not too far off. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

This page isn't about using "she" or "he". It's about pronouns that aren't in common usage like "xe" Argento Surfer (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

And the relationship that insisting on xe, etc., has to insisting on trademark over-stylization, or religious honorifics, or whatever. People seem to be missing that part.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Factually incorrect. The opening line is "It, SMcCandlish, hereby declares Its personal pronoun to be It, beginning with this sentence. It has come out as a trans-biological explicate manifestation of the Multiverse's implicate reality, made of the stuff of stars." That is making a direct parody of anyone that asks for the respectful use of gender neutral pronouns. It is transphobic and the essay is deliberate anti-LGBT+ misinformation, despite the author repeatedly and bizarrely claiming it is not. --Fæ (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Which part is misinformation? That's the second time you've claimed it to be such. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

A throwaway line about honorifics the end doesn't change the hundereds of lines before it that are about the pronouns people prefer to be refered by. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia does not use in its own voice. Shall we start using bigger fonts and bright colors, too?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually we do: MOS:GENDERID. We write In January 2017, she underwent sex reassignment surgery, not "In January 2007, she, as he prefers to be refered by, underwent sex reassignment surgery. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, of course we do, with actual words that our readers all recognize. We don't do it with neologisms (per MOS:NEO if you want to continue with the P&G links. :) This was never about "he", "she", and "they", obviously. It's about inventing something non-standard in the language and then insisting that everyone else has to go along with it. (I specifically went for a different kind alteration than tritely coming up with another new word, and instead bent usage of an existing one, just for variety's sake, and because humor requires exaggeration.) The central point is that WP doesn't write in bleeding-edge "post-English".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not against a marginalized group, it's against language-change activism claiming to speak for a marginalized group, and distorting the difference between "include what reliable sources tell us about this subject's pronouns preferences, including a neologism" and "use a neologism in Wikipedia's own voice or else you are being transphobic". The latter simply isn't true.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Just... stop talking about this subject. Please. This is really embarassing. -- a. ^{get in the spam hole | get nosey} 19:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

= "Stop defending yourself from our witch-hunt, no matter how badly we distort what the essay says and means, or how badly we character-assassinate you with pure fantasy about your views and motives." Declined. I have no issue with the Signpost piece being removed or hidden or whatever, but I won't stand by quietly while people make up nonsense lies about me. Who would?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

User:The Blade of the Northern Lights: As a person who went through similar situation (I was homeless for a month because of being gay four years ago) I can tell you I have a little bit of perspective, My reasoning is that someone who is experiencing such trauma is actually more vulnerable to jokes or being undermiend than you think. Ladsgroup^overleg 19:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

And mine is that people should be allowed to express things as they see fit. No more, no less. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

People have a legal right to be offensive, yes. But Wikipedia isn't a project in libertarian free speech dystopia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

You appear to misunderstand what Wikipedia discussion spaces are for. People should not plot criminal acts, promote hate crimes or use the site to harass minority groups. You may think that is a terrible burden that stops free expression, but it is the price of having a civil community on this project. There are plenty of other websites for your idealised free expression to happen, especially if you desperately need to publish transphobic crap because you think it is funny. --Fæ (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

My understanding of Wikipedia is not in serious dispute. And the level of sanctimony from both your comments above further convinces me that letting the most sensitive people run the show is dangerous. I'm no libertarian, merely wanting to have different viewpoints allowed in projectspace is important to me. You are conflating fact with opinion, and I'm sure you know it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Remove from the signpost as inappropriate for this venue. This is not funny and was taken too far. Natureium (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete This is remarkably disgusting and stupid, even by Wikipedia's low standards. Did no one really think through how utterly offensive this would be to the thousands of user talk pages it gets plastered on? Praxidicae (talk)
• Keep per the spirits of WP:RGW and WP:CENSOR, The Blade of the Northern Lights, and Lenny Bruce. Generally object to Wikipedia social activism and special protection for any group. Discrimination for a minority is just as bad as discrimination against one; it's still discrimination. I've already read the Delete arguments and the condescending lecturing inflicted upon previous Keepers. I'm unconvinced by the arguments and unimpressed by the lecturing, so I'm unlikely to change my !vote. But flame on if you must. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per Mandruss, WP:CENSOR, EEng, and Richard Pryor. As well as, according to Wikipedia's basic backbones, we have to assume good faith that the point of view that the author is describing to us in his notes, both on this page and the page under discussion, is the point of view that the essay was written from. And assuming good faith and seeing it from that point of view, it doesn't seem to violate WP:CENSOR. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  EEng hasn't commented on this page. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  Oh, I thought we were doing "in the spirit of" honoring. EEng popped to mind because his user and talk pages have often been under scrutiny and censorship-ready eyes. So not per EEng, but "per" EEng. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  I thought that may have been what was going on, but I was hoping EEng had commented elsewhere. This conversation about humor could use some levity. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete This is a real nadir for the Signpost, and given this particularly groan-worthy comment by the editor, I doubt we'll see a retraction. Parabolist (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Side comment - this is why Wiki’s cutesy made-up vocabulary is a Bad Thing. Only on Wiki do you see the word “editor”, and have to ask yourself “‘editor-meaning-writer/researcher’, or ‘editor’ in normal human English?”

(That’s all, you can all go back to your auto-de-fe...well, except for the inevitable Hyphen Guardian, who will decide those shoulda been s-dashes, not z-dashes.) Qwirkle (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

"Auto-de-fe? What's the Auto-de-fe?" Argento Surfer (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm sorry, SMC and Barbara, I recognize you were trying to be funny, and I've certainly made plenty of very similar missteps, but this clearly offends enough people that we shouldn't keep it in the Signpost. Mandruss's comment that discrimination for a minority is just as bad as discrimination against one isn't quite correct; the difference isn't majority or minority, the different is between laughing at someone with more power, and someone with less. We can keep this in SMC's personal user space, and I'll be going to say as much in that MfD, but the Signpost is the unofficial voice of us editors, and has a lot of influence. --GRuban (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm actually laughing at editors (mostly not part of that minority) who want to write about the minority in the minority's own lingo (often an individual idiolect). I'm quite disappointed at the number of respondents here who don't seem to want to understand that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Well, um, if you look at the top of this section, the nominator of this MfD (1) is a prolific and experienced WP editor, and (2) identifies as a they, and (3) doesn't seem to find it funny. So, I'm going to go out on a limb here, and venture that the target was missed. Having to explain a joke is already not a great sign. Having to grab people by their virtual lapels and figuratively shake them while insisting that they should find it funny, and that you were really on their side all along, if only they weren't being so stubborn and not wanting to understand it is, um ... Yeah. --GRuban (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep, but retract. And perhaps reexamine editorial standards, while you're at it... Benjamin (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Retract, delete, and apologize. This is extremely misguided and one of the most shocking bits of incivility I have ever seen on Wikipedia. This horrific attempt at "humour" pokes fun at people who are already marginalized by society and by the English language, and makes them feel shitty. I am appalled at the temerity of those who wrote this article, and even more dismayed at those who thought this was okay to publish. Keeping content such as this in your userspace reflects poorly on you, but publishing it in the Signpost reflects poorly on us all. Bradv🍁 21:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Commentary on MOS:GENDERID or its implications for inter-editor interactions is absolutely allowable, but not sure what the hell the authors or Signpost editors were thinking putting this sardonic piece in The Signpost unless they just wanted to stir up a shitstorm. Not only a professional offense-taker (no offense intended) would take offense to this piece. Satirical humor is not the way to express sensitive opinions in a serious collaborative project. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete and/or retract Is this really the hill you want to die on? ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  ...With an edit summary of People have been fired for less. Yeah, maybe we should dock him a day’s wages, eh? Qwirkle (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  And who's this imaginary "you" dying on a hill? I've already said I agree with the deletion from the Signpost; the Signpost main editor Bri hasn't commented, nor has the sub-editor (or whatever), Barbara (WVS). I only see one army running up a hill and bleeding.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Strong delete. While I do not believe that nonstandard gender pronouns should be used in articles (per MOS:NEO), there are ways of expressing this opinion without being extremely transphobic. This reflects extremely poorly upon Wikipedia and goes against everything I believe Wikipedia to stand for. As an editor of The Signpost (though not an editor-in-chief), I feel I am at least partly responsible for this essay’s appearance in our newspaper’s latest issue, and I apologize for not preventing this from being published. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 21:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  Now that the page has been blanked, I would like to switch my position to weak keep for its current form. This would (partially) head off the censorship arguments and hopefully ensure people don’t make this same mistake again. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 03:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete and publish a postmortem about how this made it to publication. --Ori Livneh (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• The page should be blanked and replaced with an explanation of why the content is problematic, how it ended up in the Signpost, and what changes have been made because of it. Barring that, delete as inappropriate for a diverse and inclusive project. The point the author says they were trying to make could have been made without offending people. This page does not represent us well and is beyond the point of WP:TNT. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Ori Livneh and AntiCompositeNumber: given this was actively endorsed by both editors of the Signpost when problems were pointed out, one of whom which seems to be more interested in disparaging their critics than take responsability for publishing this piece of garbage, I wouldn't hold my breath for a post-mortem or a retraction. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  Oh, I'm not expecting one. I'm just saying that it would be the only circumstance where this content should be kept anywhere remotely visible. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  Addendum: I see all the references to WP:NOTCENSORED below, and point them to WP:NOTNEWS. When it comes to "What Wikipedia is not", the Signpost is a special case. As Bri mentioned in From the editors in this issue, the Signpost is the only notable publication by the Wikipedia community; for the Wikipedia community. The Signpost must and will reflect the views of inclusion and diversity that built the community they serve. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete quickly. The nastiness of this is well-discussed above. Additionally, by being associated with the "newspaper" of Wikipedia, this has the potential for causing severe repetitional damage to the project as a whole, as to an external viewer this isn't just the ignorant views of a single editor but something with stronger ties to the project. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. It's quite a modest proposal. Jonathunder (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal punched up, not down. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Like Swift, the writer of this essay punches in a different direction than a cursory reading would indicate. Jonathunder (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Authors don't get to decide or dictate how readers understand their works especially not when one of the primary topics of the work is a frequent target of harassment and hate (and much, much worse). ElKevbo (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Nor do hasty judgments get to decide meaning or dictate it for more careful critics. Jonathunder (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Strong delete. There's no reason to be transphobic, especially in Wikipedia's newspaper. Trans people are here to build an encyclopedia too and should be treated as such; articles like this in the community's newspaper are not going to help with editor retention for LGBT editors and invite charges of systemic bias against the project. I agree with some of the editors above that a snarky, nasty article like this one is not the way to raise issues with MOS:GENDERID. --Chumash11 (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete when humor targets discriminated groups it is not humor anymore. This was recently show in the Ligue du LOL affair in France. Humor can lead to harrassment, even if the original intention was not to harass. There is place enough for humor to express itself in the variety of subjects that do not offend anyone. I specially find the introductory words " It has come out as a trans-biological explicate manifestation of the Multiverse's implicate reality, made of the stuff of stars. " problematic. The juxtaposition of "biological" with "trans" when we all know referring to biology is insulting to some people sets the tone from the first phrase. --Nattes à chat (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Not remotely funny and that's coming from someone who generally laughs at everything, There's having a laugh and then there's being transphobic, Deserves to be deleted off the face of the earth and then some. –Davey2010^Talk 23:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. (at great risk of offending all the weak and timid) Keep per all the keeps above and those that follow. This whole thing's a joke. It appears that the funniest part is that the deletionists here don't "get it". Someone wrote about "suicide rates", but failed to mention that of professional funny people, aka comics. Anytime one says or writes anything meant to be humorous, one risks offending those who "read (write?) between the lines" for whatever reason. The Signpost should not be censored for any reason once any article its editors have agreed to publish gets read by those who choose (opt in) to read it! Those who would censor this great publication should SELF-WHALE before writing/editing anything else. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  23:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Admittedly my first reaction was just to roll my eyes at this article, but other editors have raised good points that this article if allowed to stand could definitely bite editors. Additionally, while I don't think it's my place to demand an apology, I would encourage people who were involved with the decision to write and publish this article to seriously consider apologizing as a token of good faith toward anyone who may have felt slighted or attacked by the article. I for one regret not speaking up when I saw this article in the draft section of the current Signpost issue. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not really an active editor at all, but I actually have a friend who attempted suicide in part due to constant transphobia like this. A lot of people at school kept on calling them "it" and saying things such as like "it is not a person" (Also a direct quote from the text, btw). That's all I'm comfortable saying on the matter. I feel sick from reading this now. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  Which is utterly unrelated to the essay. The "It" in the piece is a fictional character who personally insists on "It", for claimed post-human and self-aggrandizing reasons; it has more to do with egotistical celebrities than anything (e.g. "Ke$ha", and see how that RM discussion went). It's the diametric opposite of what you're talking about, which is labeling by third parties. Look, there are only a few pronouns in English. Any material tweaking one of them is necessarily going to coincide with any number of "something somewhere happened to someone" things.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  I'm sorry if this is a stupid question that you've answered before, I'm sort of tired right now (because yay scholarship application deadlines!), but if this isn't about the pronouns people used, but rather celebrities, then why did you call the piece "Pronouns beware", talk about pronouns throughout the majority of the iece and only make one Prince reference at the very end? I'm sorry, I'm sure you answered this before/ have a perfectly logical reason but just I'm super-duper tired right now. Hopefully you're off having a great Friday night right now, so it's okay if you don't get back to me/answer at all. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  I didn't title it that, Barbara (WVS) did, as a Signpost editorial decision about which I wasn't asked. It focuses on an imaginary cult leader doing something weird with pronouns (something different from what TG/NB people do with pronouns), and closes with legalistic handwaving, to combine in one piece an objection to editors doing weird stuff to English with honorific aggrandizement, trademark and marketing stylization demands, and insertion of neologistic changes to pronoun usage into our articles. That the last of these is typically done by editors in relation to TG/NB subjects is incidental; criticizing the practice as non-encyclopedic writing (when done in Wikipedia's own voice) is doing just that; it is not an attack on TG/NB people and what they do in their private lives. "It's about pronouns ergo it must be an attack on genderqueer people" isn't a sound position, but one that various people are taking here. I've already conceded that it was probably predictable that various people would take that position no matter what, and thus that assenting to re-use of my userspace essay as a piece in Signpost was a bad idea. But no amount of willful misinterpretation of the piece as transphobic can make it so, nor retroactively inject me with transphobic intent. The worst I'm supposedly guilty of is being less sensitive to likelihood of some people taking offense (whether it's reasoned offense or not) than some would like. I'll repeat that people's assumptions that I'm not under the LGBT+ banner myself are false, though I do not dwell on such matters here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete or blank per what others have said above. This isn't humourous, nor is it Wikipedia-related or appropriate for a publication like the Signpost. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 01:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Speaker's Corner in Auckland. Fine print reads "no offensive language allowed".

• Keep. I was acting Editor-in-Chief of The Signpost for this issue and solely responsible for approving publication of the item in question. In evidence of my !vote I present this self-defeating Speaker's Corner that cautions against use of offensive speech. Offensive is in the eye of the beholder, and acting like you are a captive audience of The Signpost's humour column is farcical. Does T&S really protect against seeing ideas like that, based on (I guess) an accidental click-through? Okay, yes, I thought there might be some offense taken before approving publication of this; it's part of the juggling act of making an engaging, interesting publication that is also a platform for opinions, even if they are unpopular ones. Just a little thought experiment: if this had been run as an op-ed where each farcical point was instead couched as "let's not endorse pronoun choice in the MOS", would that be up for expungement from the history of this project too? Or is it the label "humour" that makes it verboten? Or the mere suggestion that one can find overindulgence in symbols and unfamiliar terms humorous? Since unfunny humor is not a valid reason for deletion, then we are only left with the postulate that talking about pronouns is so hurtful that it can't be allowed. Is that where we are going? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As an oh-by-the-way, this deletion debate was posted to exactly one on-wiki forum with rather inflammatory language "...derides the respectful use of personal pronouns..." : not a very good way to observe WP:CANVASS IMO. I'm going to post elsewhere. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  I can't speak for others but a genuine conversation about how to handle this issue would be welcome. A disingenuous, mean-spirited swipe at groups of people who already experience significant harassment and hatred is not welcome especially when it doesn't advance the discussion it aimed to advance. At best this was extraordinarily clumsy; at worst it actively hateful and counter to our community norms.

  We can - and should - discuss difficult and sensitive issues with one another. We should not do it in ways that are deliberately and actively hateful, especially not in semi-official or promoted venues like this one. ElKevbo (talk) 03:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  deliberately and actively hateful - The page's author has clearly stated that he had no such intent. Are you saying he's lying about that? If you are saying he's lying, are you prepared to back that up with evidence? If you are not saying he's lying, can you explain how one can be deliberately hateful without his knowledge? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  I don't know. I hope that it's "merely" ignorance and not deliberate but the discussion so far is not very convincing. More importantly, it doesn't matter if it was done deliberately or ignorantly - it shouldn't have been done and the editors should definitely not have allowed it to be published. There are multiple failures of judgement here. ElKevbo (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  It certainly matters that we say what we mean, rather than just throwing tough, hyperbolic words around. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  There's also a difference between "ignorance" (a lack of knowledge or information) and "unwillingness to avoid an issue just because some people are very sensitive about it."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  The page's author, yes. But how do you explain this by Bri? Notice that ElKevbo wasn't talking about the article's author, and also notice that this thread is under Bri's !vote. Your comment seems like a red herring, sorry. wumbolo ^^^ 22:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not seeing any deliberate hatefulness there, either, sorry. Apparently your mind-reading skills are far better than mine. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  Re, "a genuine conversation about how to handle this issue would be welcome": See here, first paragraph; we've already talked the matter to death in serious tones, with extremely unproductive results. Trying humor was an experiment worth doing, even if this particular one failed ("was extraordinarily clumsy"?). I'm skeptical that this can be approached with humor at all on WP, because some editors evince a view that humor cannot come anywhere near certain topics; if it has to do with people who do inappropriate things in the encyclopedia when writing about that subject, then it must nevertheless just be an attack on the subject itself, somehow, no matter what. It doesn't seem to matter how fallacious that idea is; it feels correct to certain individuals. We can't "discuss difficult and sensitive issues" when one segment of such a discussion will demonize as transphobic monsters those who don't agree perfectly with them (even if they agree on 99.99% of it and just diverge on one point, like using neo-pronouns).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  Hey Bri thanks for weighing in and explaining. I think if only this had been an earnest discussion on MOS issues it would've been a classic good article for The Signpost. However, it is a derisive screed against choice in pronouns, or reads as such. I don't see how this can be seen as a constructive contribution to the Wikipedia newspaper. There is a way to collaboratively approach differences and this was not it. The mockery goes beyond the purportedly intended topic. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  @Bri: In another article in this same issue, you wrote that the Signpost is a "publication by the Wikipedia community; for the Wikipedia community". We're not censoring you, we're announcing loudly and clearly that this article does not represent the views of the community. It is not "engaging" or "interesting"; it is barely thought-provoking, and it certainly is not "humour". Whatever point the article was trying to make is buried under insensitive and offensive transphobic rhetoric, with a dose of religious mockery to boot. The Signpost has failed us, and I hope that you and the others responsible can acknowledge that. Bradv🍁 03:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - What the H@$^! I see no humor in this. I also see no reason why using the British spelling of humour makes it any less humourless. I also don't understand what this has to do with the red giant nucleosynthesis that gives rise to the carbon of which we are partly constructed and the nitrogen and oxygen we breathe, but that doesn't matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Given the great efforts we have towards respecting the gender identity of BLP and things like deadnaming, this is not respectful of that. --Masem (t) 05:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete This is by far the most shocking and offensive and inappropriate thing that I have ever read on the Signpost or anywhere else on a quasi-official Wikipedia page. People who get their jollies by mocking the weakest and most marginalized among us are truly sick and deserve social condemnation. What the hell went wrong that allowed this stinking pile of crap to be posted on a high visibility page? It is bizarre and offensive to every right thinking person. I have never once said this before, but Speedy Delete. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete It is reasonable to make fun of groups in authority / power or oneself. Not reasonable to do so of a marginalized group IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Courtesy blank obviously and delete -- I rarely agree with Fae but this' one of these occurrences. The write-up is sheer pathetic from a multitude of angles and I don't know the damn reasons behind the editorial approval, unless they are willing to draw attention onto themselves by these stunts, which have been going for long. The point that SmC/BBP wishes to bring before the readers can be done in a far more diplomatic and non-discriminatory manner. ∯WBG^converse 11:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored.

As you travel through life you will encounter attempts at humor that you find to be offensive. See [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc6QxD2_yQw ], which documents and complains about some very offensive material that is for some reason widely accepted as being OK. Go ahead and flame the "comic", boycott its sponsors/advertisers, etc., but do not attempt to censor. Besides being morally repugnant (who are you to tell me what I am allowed to see?) you are extremely likely to end up experiencing the Streisand effect up close and personal.

I have some advice for the censors. Don't read things that you find to be offensive. Unless you are tied to a chair with your head in a clamp, your eyes taped open, a self-refreshing Wikipedia feed on a monitor, and the Wikipedia Song blaring into your ears, nobody is forcing you to read and respond to The Signpost. Simply stop clicking on the links marked "editorial" or "humor". The fact that you have a choice about what you read means that if you encounter something that you are offended by you only have yourself to blame.

If you are tied to a chair, etc., let me address your captors: First, keep up the good work. Second, please take away its keyboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Lean toward keep—It's too sensitive and too vulnerable to misinterpretation to be listed under "Humour". The piece would have made more sense recast as a non-humorous op. ed. on the subject; that was the responsibility of the co-editors in chief to suggest, but they appear to be far too laissez faire in their role. As well, it's just so weird in its current form (is that part of the "humour"?), and many readers won't take the time to decipher it. Humour is often a way to approach things we find difficult, through their are still boundaries. Now it's published, the horse has bolted. Why not let it remain, using the article and the disquiet it has generated as a springboard for a proper airing in the next Signpost edition, setting out the complexities of the apparent subject matter and this heated debate. That might serve a good purpose after all, but would be an intricate exercise in journalism. [No, I'm not volunteering, and disclosure: I'm an old wikifriend of SMcCandlish.] Tony (talk) 12:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• weak keep. I would read that signpost essay as bad or awkward satire (or attempt thereof). The best way to treat that is to ignore it and move on, instead now it has turn into political battle and we have Streisand effect. Yes while the signpost is not free per se and definitely should not discriminate minorities, it is nevertheless a place for frank discussions and contrarian opinions among Wikipedians and policing or wikilawyering that away is a bad idea.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Lirazelf (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC

• Delete or move to the author's userspace. Something like this in an editor's userspace would be one thing, but published in Wikipedia's internal newsletter it has the potential to make the project look really bad if reported in the press. This should have been caught before publication. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  It was already copied from something in userspace. This was not written for the Signpost, someone just asked to use it in an issue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for that clarification. In that case, delete from the signpost, but I think it's fine to keep in your userspace. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Had they used "Xie" or something of the source, it wouldn't be funny, but it wouldn't be unacceptable. Had they used something absurd, and run with it, it might have been vague amusing. But using "it" is problematic - "it" is used to dehumanise trans and non-binary people, and it's used in precisely the way this "humour" piece does. It plays off that sort of usage. I'm confident that it wasn't the intent, but the end product is transphobic and exclusionary. Intent is beside the point. Guettarda (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  I've already addressed this exact matter, above. It's not just unrelated, it's completely opposite what you're talking about (and it also is something absurd – a fictional "space-god" cult leader who demands to be known as "It" because of claims of transcendence). Had I used Xie, which is fairly commonly known to be in real-world use by various non-binary people, that would have actually been a problem; it would make many of the wild accusations on this page true, by tying this to TG/NB matters in particular instead of making a general point about non-standard English.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. WP:CENSOR. Calidum 04:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• This should at least be delisted from the Signpost and archived. It might've been unintentionally offensive, but yet it was extremely offensive to the people it targets, as seen in some of the above messages. Regardless of whether it technically breaks any rules, it definitely breaks the spirit of them. ɱ (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep While I disagree with the content strongly (as someone who doesn't use traditional pronouns), Wikipedia is not censored. If folks don't like it, post in the comments section, have a critical discussion about it, or write a counter article for the next edition of the Signpost. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 06:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete as a form of protest against some of the stories that the Signpost has run lately. I quote one of the authors:[3]

“ It's about Wikipedia editors engaging in language-change activism trying to push non-mainstream stylistic strangeness, including a) fake pronouns like zie and hirm, b) unusual trademark stylizations, and c) excessive honorifics. It has nothing whatsoever to do with off-site usages or the values (or value) of those who engage in them somewhere else. ”

There are more diplomatic ways to make the same point that would generate more light and less heat. This post was needlessly inflammatory and divisive. And "delete" because this is apparently the only way the community can show some form of disapproval for some of the most recent stories that have come out of the Signpost. --Rschen7754 07:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Read as it is (rather than what people assume it is/says), I find nothing objectionable and I find it quite apropos in terms of various celebrity demands to be called preposterous things (I suppose this started with Prince, which was a legal maneuver, but these days it's reached absurd proportions, and perhaps everyone isn't aware of many of the current oddities if they don't follow social media). I think readers may have gotten triggered by the use of the prefix "trans" in the second sentence, but it's "trans-biological"; i.e., non-animate or beyond biological. I'm quite sensitive to transgendered persons not being misgendered and I have watchlisted numerous wiki articles to prevent that; this humor piece is not about that; it's about celebrity crazes in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  While there's some talk of the humour piece being trans phobic, I don't think it can be seen as directly attacking regular trans folk. Rather its more offensive to gender fluid/non binary / intersex folk. Perhaps I'm wrong, it's beacause this matter is hard to understand that I don't agree with any censure for the author, despite the level of outrage. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  I have no lack of understanding of those matters, and we have singular they and other methods for dealing with how to write about such subjects encyclopedically – without resorting to neo-pronouns like ze, hirs, etc. Softlavender is correct that the piece is much more general (as I said elsewhere, it's in part a parody of Scientology, intentionally uses pseudo-religious mumbo-jumbo, and bends an existing pronoun in ways no one would go along with, rather than introducing a new one, specifically to distance the material from any association with TG/NB matters. This discussion has simply totally focused on TG/NB stuff, and ignores the trademark, religious, and other "write it my way or else" stuff it's addressing; it has more to do with MOS:DOCTCAPS and MOS:TM than MOS:IDENTITY, and has no connection to a question (which no one actually asks) like "should WP refer to transwomen as 'she'?". At any rate, one thing that's happening here is sheer disbelief on the part of the hyper-sensitive that not everyone shares the exactly same sensitivity level, without being stupid and/or their enemy. It's a very condescending and unconstructive attitude.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Though while very much respecting the strenght of feeling here, I don't agree with censure for the author or the editors who selected it for Signpost. My first reaction was to find it the funniest & most artful composition I've read on Wikipedia for years. 99% sure the intent is mainly to protect certain encyclopaedic values and maybe have a dig at elite SJWs, not at LGBT+. It's elite SJWs who right now would be the only folk to have the front to make a sustained attempt at getting neo-pronouns used in the encyclopaedic voice. Still, while intent may be relvent to the question of censure, it's not to the case for deletion.This wasn't apparent at first glance, but on reflection the article is clearly highly offensive to some LGBT+ folk and those that care about them. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  I don't object to deletion (or blanking, or something) of the Signpost copy, since that's a community resource, and enough people object that we needn't keep this piece of it. But there's no speedy deletion criterion that applies. You're probably thinking of WP:G10, but this doesn't qualify: it serves a WP-related purpose, and it doesn't "disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass" anyone; it's simply criticizes an editorial practice (behavior and content, not editors, or encyclopedia subjects), namely mimicking logos, injecting PoV-laden honorifics, and use of neologisms that don't mean anything to most of our readers, especially for motivations of profit, politics, ego, or faith. PS: This also doesn't have anything to do with "SJW" stuff, other than in the most incidental way (people given that label are, yes, the most likely to be inserting things like zie into articles on TG and nonbinary people, but that's only one of many examples of inappropriate "do weird stuff to English" behavior; most of it's actually motivated by fandom, corporate interests, and religious fervor, in that order of frequency). Actually forgot one in the middle of that list: punctuation-dropping; certain genres of writing are unusually comma- and hyphen-hating, and fans of them try to use that style here, producing confusingly ambiguous gibberish.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• DeleteBlank (but keep) In practice it clearly and unsurprisingly causes a lot of unnecessary offense (and, incidentally, is consequently also liable to damage Wikipedia's reputation, and its ability to attract and retain LGBT+ editors). It isn't particularly relevant that the offense seems unintentional (per WP:AGF among other reasons), as the harm is done regardless. And WP:NOTCENSORED also seems irrelevant as this is not an encyclopedic article but a mere piece of humour (and in any case Wikipedia is not a democracy and is not a forum for free speech).Tlhslobus (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• I've changed above from Delete to 'Blank (but keep)' (which in effect is the current situation, at least for now) for basically the same reason given in my edit description when restoring the link from the Signpost front page to the now blanked Humour page that also explains the blanking, leaves the link to here and says you can see what the fuss is about in the page history. My edit description reads: Undoing good faith edit. I fully agree with the blanking of the item as (presumably unwittingly) causing unnecessary offense, but preventing readers from finding out there has been a major row, and thus preventing them from making up their own minds about it, and leaving them mystified about where Humour went this month, seems to me to go too far in the direction of unnecessary censorship. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Re "LGBT+ editors": I love how everyone here assumes I'm not in that acronym. The idea that everyone with a higher number than 0 on the Kinsey scale automatically buys into every idea advanced by anyone in the name of LGBT+ stuff is pure fantasy (and that specially goes for recently coined pronoun alternatives). While I'm neither conservative in most respects nor a Republican (in the US political party sense), I have to wonder whether more than 10% of the people commenting on this page are aware that LGBT conservatism exists (and that editors from that point on the spectrum are welcome here); people who identify that way politically generally do not buy into all this censorious hand-wringing about being super-mega-careful about what you say.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Would have been bad enough in a month's time on 1 April. Top and bottom of it - this is NOT funny. If it is also offensive and not funny and I was the author, I would just back it out and curl up in embarrassment. Leaky caldron (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. It is amusing to see how User:SMcCandlish and User:Fæ are colliding, while plural_they are both advocates of the singular they. Both are missing the key issue, since using "they" for one-self is only underlining you are dissatisfied with the number you were assigned at birth. But like it or not, one person = one vote is the rule to apply. Pldx1 (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep I think the point could have been made a bit more tactfully, but we have to be able to have discussions about topics like these without all the emotional reactions. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - even if the strongest critics are correct, which I doubt, as an example of "stupid things mean people said in 2019". I know people with "wacky pronouns" (zie, zer, etc.) and happily use them in a social context, but would not expect to see them in a Wikipedia article. I am also quite supportive of transhumanist ideas, but the people who feel they are transhuman simply because they have a magnet implanted subdermally do not need to be humoured in their biographies. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC).
  
• Keep - It's satire. Not particularly amusing satire, but satire nonetheless. —DoRD (talk)​ 12:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Besides WP:CENSOR, which adequately describes and dismisses situations like this, has everyone forgotten that The Signpost exists as an on-line in-house newspaper published in the United States? The United States has a Constitutional amendment front-and-center in its Bill of Rights assuring writers, publishers, and editors Freedom of the Press. Those commenting have Freedom of Speech, but that doesn't negate, mute, or lessen the importance and rarity of freedom of the press. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  And WP:NOTFREESPEECH adequately describes and dismisses arguments like this. wumbolo ^^^ 13:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  No, it doesn't, per "Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia". This concerns the Wikipedia newspaper, The Signpost, which is covered by the first amendment, not the encyclopedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  Technically speaking, the First Amendment only applies against government imposition of would-be censorship (I would know, since 1st Am. stuff was my job, back in the 1990s :-). The stronger point is that an essay about avoiding pseudo-English in English Wikipedia doesn't "interfere with creating an encyclopedia", but the opposite. This also deflates the WP:POLEMIC-based argument. However, I'm not particularly concerned with the Signpost copy of this; the community arguably has more of an editorial interest in its e-newspaper content than it does in a userspace essay.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) The First Amendment is irrelevant in this case, because the Signpost is not self-hosted, and its platform is provided by the Wikimedia Foundation (which, obviously, would be well within its rights to control the content on its own servers). That the Signpost is a semi-formalized publication is also irrelevant to whether community policies and guidelines are applicable to it, since it is hosted as part of the English Wikipedia. Jc86035 (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  Taking your point of view into consideration, I'll amend my comment to say that an article chosen by the editors of The Signpost may not fit the letter of the law, but fits the spirit of the law. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press may not apply directly, although I can't imagine why not, yet the encyclopedia and foundation should allow the volunteer staff to put out the publication as they see fit, which, remember, allows on-page comments and discussion to become part of the entire article (full disclosure, my own slight contribution to the publication is doing an edit run, usually for minor edits like adding italics, when I notice a new edition has come out). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  Not only is the Bill of Rights irrelevant here because it only prevents the government from limiting freedom of the press, if you scroll down one section from WP:CENSOR you will come across WP:NOTFREESPEECH, which specifically says that Wikipedia "restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia". --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 16:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep As satire the only person being belittled is the writer. If any one is so offended by this then be aware that you have permission to be offended, but that is all about the person being offended, not the writing. If any one is so offended that they feel like being blocked from editing en.Wikipedia, then self requested blocks are available. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• I am not entirely sure if deletion through Wikipedia's typical means really applies to articles in the Signpost. Rather, I suppose I'd see it blanked? Or, perhaps, prefaced with a certain type of disclaimer/apology. I am not certain what the proper way to handle a meanspirited and insulting Signpost article, but I would prefer to treat it moreso as an actual publication rather than a personal essay created by some person. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep People are overreacting. 130.238.180.53 (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC) — 130.238.180.53 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep It's satire, see also WP:NOTCENSORED in some of the above !votes. SemiHypercube 13:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  Also, this discussion might make it to WP:DELETION100. SemiHypercube 13:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep I agree that there appears to have been an emotional overreaction to something that is neither egregiously offensive or, even, against policy: WP:IDONTLIKEIT probably applies. WP:ASSUMEBADFAITH certainly does. ——SerialNumber54129 13:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  What about WP:NPA? Bradv🍁 13:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Did you really feel the need to link me to NPA? Did you really think I might not know of that page? Perhaps you thougt that linking might make something actually become a personal attack when it was not before? No? Excellent. ——SerialNumber54129 14:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the link, as it appears to have offended you. See how easy that was? Bradv🍁 14:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:HUMOUR, WP:Sarcasm is really helpful, WP:Tempest in a teapot, WP:We are all adults here, and WP:STRAWMAN (somebody should write that one). Personally, I don't think this article is great humour: the only place that made me laugh was the oblique reference to TAFKAP. But the cohorts of respectable editors getting all uppity offended, demanding censorship from their high horse, actually made me laugh much harder. Ban me if you must. — JFG ^talk 14:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep/Delete. Well this certainly has gotten the creative juices flowing, if argumentation can be interpreted as creative juices. I say keep it but delete it. Bus stop (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

You're completely wrong, of course, but I couldn't agree with you more. --GRuban (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:NOTCENSORED. Also, Fæ hasn't made a valid deletion rationale. Finally, the authors are certainly not trying to disparage anyone. The delete !votes (especially from the admins) says more about who they are than the content of this Signpost piece, which is not an encyclopedia article. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep It is a "humorous essay" and, as such, is perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia-space. Deletion would make me want to edit this discussion and label it as "humor" as it has certainly attained such a status, in my honest opinion. Wikipedia Signpost essays are not "official opinions" of anyone at all, but deleting them sure as heck makes an "official statement". Collect (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. If this was satire, it failed hopelessly in making a moral point. If it was intended as humor, it failed in being funny--it's just mean. We're not censored, but not deleting it sends a pretty clear message that we're OK with people making fun of other people in mean ways. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per The Blade of the Northern Lights and Jonathunder. Satire is satire; often offensive, usually not funny to someone or other; the best thing to do is ignore it if you don't find it humorous and allow those who do to chuckle. Despite the opinion immediately above mine, this did make a point, and did not fail in being funny; some may not find it funny, that doesn't mean it's not. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 18:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Lindsay, that you enjoy chuckling at something that makes fun of people whose gender identities in many cases are already problematic enough, and may cost them their lives, sorry if I don't have much sympathy for that. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete I get where the writers are coming from but it was not particularly funny and very insensitive. Poking fun at marginalized groups is cheap and we, on Wikipedia, should strive to be inclusive. Since our mission is to build an encyclopedia, stuff like this serves no purpose and ends up as a distraction. Speedily delete would be my preference and perhaps the authors should consider taking the high road and make that request themselves. --regentspark (comment) 14:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment the !vote currently stands at (approximately, I may have miscounted) 48 to delete (including 5 as second/alternate choices), 3 to blank, 1 to "remove from the signpost", two to retract (one to mark as historical), 27 to keep, and 1 to "Keep/Delete". -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  • ...and the votes based on anything like policy stand at about 15, all to keep. Qwirkle (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  is that including the nomination statemnt, which all delete votes not linking policy are typically assumed to be concurring with? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  Given that the posterchild for odd pronoun use on Wikipedia is a heterosexual woman, Zoe Quinn, all of the nominator’s handwavings strike me as misdirection at best.

  The idea that some of the delete votes here are based on anything other than a visceral reaction is laughable.

  (Some of the keep votes, as well, no doubt.) Qwirkle (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  The nominator has gone farther than I, I will admit. But, the WMF has a policy based in non-discrimination, and this could easily be taken as discriminatory. Imagine that an editor wrote a piece for the Signpost, laughing about that Catholics wear ash on their foreheads. Imagine a Signpost piece making fun of Jews, or blacks. Would that be allowed to stand? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  [C]ould easily be taken as discriminatory is very diferent from “discriminatory,” and how “easy” it is to do so is obviously debated. Qwirkle (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Every delete vote is based on the exact policies that the nominator cited in their nomination for deletion. They're right there, in blue links even. It boggles the mind that every vote by a person who disagrees with you is de facto not policy based, even when they quote policy or when they agree with those who quote policy. You seem to be using the phrase "votes based on anything like policy" to be a synonym for "votes that agree with me" which is an idiosyncratic definition at best. --Jayron32 17:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  No. Perhaps every bare delete vote should be based on the nomination, but there’s no indication that is so in general, and certainly not here. You are confusing description and prescription. Qwirkle (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  Perhaps you missed including the nomination statemnt, which all delete votes not linking policy are typically assumed to be concurring with a couple comments up. This isn't a new thing, it's been like thatfor longer thatn I've been on Wikipedia. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  I could hardly have “missed” something I explicitly replied to. It’s at best wishful thinking, and at worse a pious fraud; either way, one of those “Sunday Truths” Wikipedia depends to much on. Qwirkle (talk)

  Then you must have ignored it. WP:RFA comes right out and says it, everywhere else just follows that. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• This is not a "vote" - the aim is to determine whether as a matter of Wikipedia policies raised this essay should be excised. "I don't like it" is, moreover, not a valid argument on any deletion discussions at all. So far, those citing actual policies appear to be !voting "keep", while those who feel no humor should remotely disparage anyone seem to be !voting "delete." Sadly, "offending no one" is not a Wikipedia policy as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Of course we can also ignore all rules and keep it but delete it. Bus stop (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• It has never been a requirement to quote a list of policies for a vote to mean something. By default, it is reasonable to presume that someone voting delete with no policy links, agrees with the nomination and the policies quoted there. --Fæ (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• I think that is a very good point. I think we've lost the art of dialogue amidst the alphabet soup of policy abbreviations. Bus stop (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per the policies cited by Fæ in the opening nomination. Holy shit. That shows some fantastically poor judgement, and that's only if I'm being generous in my assessment. If I thought someone was being deliberately that bigoted, I'd be even more upset with it. Wow. Just wow. --Jayron32 17:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Such bigotry is extremely disappointing and hurtful. This certainly doesn't belong in the Signpost. Kaldari (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. I am WP:INVOLVED, but I do think that we could have easily replaced it with the humor article that was sent in (edit conflict). ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 18:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral because apparently a middle ground can't be shown about this. – The Grid (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't for a moment think the writers or the editor intended this as any kind of attack piece, but I do think it appears to be mocking those for whom gender pronouns are important issues. It is badly misjudged. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Very weak keep. Weak delete The article is certainly questionable in some ways. It uses a mocking tone to describe a sensitive issue, which may be poor editorial judgment. However, it is unclear how the article harrasses transgender Wikipedians. The article clearly deals with WP:BLP writing style, which means that the joke is about public figures rather than individual users, and no individual user is named or alluded to. Instead, it is clearly about the writing style decision of whether or not non-binary individuals should be referred to using pronouns that are not commonly accepted. Banning this type of discourse as transphobic could place it in the same category as dangerous extremist views like pedophilia activism even though this point of view is accepted in the centre-right. Thus, a removal over TOS issues could set a bad precedent and limit the range of acceptable politicial viewpoints on Wikipeia to centre-left and beyond.Leugen9001 (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC) Edit: upon further thought, because this is a Signpost article that fails to represent Wikipedia, it should be deleted from Signpost but not userspace.Leugen9001 (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  I wasn't aware that bigotry (even unintentional) was a political viewpoint. Can you explain? --Jayron32 19:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  That question assumes that the article is bigoted. What should the standards for bigotry be for Wikipedia? In what ways does the article encourage discrimination or hatred? Also note that I have changed my viewpoint to weak delete. Leugen9001 (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  It is when you understand the context of the way that the use of pronouns is used to dehumanize transgender people (to treat them as less than fully human) or to delegitimize the concept of being transgender person (that is, to make the claim that there are no earnestly transgender people, that they are faking, or that the entire notion that someone could be transgender isn't "real"). The use of language to do this deliberately and with malice is well documented and obvious if you are paying attention. For example, in the case of the first, the use of "it", which in English is reserved solely for non-human nouns, can be easily taken as dehumanizing. In the case of the second, the refusal to use the gender pronouns associated with someone's gender identity, and to insist only on using those associated with one's assigned gender at birth, is a clear denial of the reality of being transgender (it 'delegitimizes' it). In both cases, that these actions are consistently taken with deliberate malice is why they are bigotry and not politics. Now, the original writer of the article may have been genuinely ignorant of these issues, and have meant no harm, but it doesn't make the outcome of such an article (its hurtfulness and harm) any different. Intent should be used to decide how to handle the writer. Outcome should be used to determine how to handle the content. The outcome of this article is that it is hurtful, bigoted writing and should be deleted per WMF:Non-discrimination policy. That's what I meant by "bigotry is not a political viewpoint". Dehumanizing people is always bigoted, and that shouldn't ever be considered a valid political stance. (and thanks for changing your vote by the way). --Jayron32 20:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  That characterization of the essay is incorrect. The essay does not dehumanize trans people; it uses "It" as an example of an uncommon pronoun rather than calling all trans people "It". It only delegitimizes the use of unconventional gender-neutral pronouns other than they in mainspace, which is far from dehumanizing or even delegitimizing trans people. Furthermore, delegitimizing being transgender, and especially delegitimizing non-binary gender orientations, should be seen differently than dehumanizing trans individuals. The former is a viewpoint held by mainstream religious conservatives and even some binary trans people; the latter is blatant hate speech. Banning the former would restrict the range of acceptable discourse to a small part of the political spectrum, which is clearly unacceptable. Edit at 02:39 2 March 2019 : clarification.Leugen9001 (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep + Blank. At first I thought the article might be a reference to SCP-426; the line about Unicode and "the Entity Who Until Recently Was Known as It" seemed to lean in a sci-fi fashion. But that last line really removes any doubt about what it's really addressing. The article was clearly in bad taste, as demonstrated by the backlash here and in article comments. However, I'd really rather not feed the "LGBTQ people are hypersensitive SJW snowflakes who get offended by everything and have no sense of humour and they want to silence all dissenters" narrative. Without the problematic bits at the start and end, the article had the potential to be a fairly decent satire piece about honorifics or something (e.g. "Super Kami Guru will allow this"). But I can see how those bits transform the article into a piece that can be interpreted as mocking or belittling a group of people. Family Guy can roll with the controversy, but Wikipedia should probably try to avoid doing things that would reflect poorly upon its reputation and incense parts of its userbase. Now personally, perhaps I've been desensitized by reading too much cancer in comments, but the article didn't strike me as particularly offensive; rather, it read to me as a questionable controversial take on a subject matter (widely open to misinterpretation) that would surely spark a lot healthy rational heated discussion in comments.

In any case, as Signpost is a newspaper, it should have accountability and own up to its mistakes. Deleting the article and the attached discussion would be counterproductive to those ends. A delist from the front page + WP:CBLANK should be sufficient, in my view. I'm satisfied with the current notice, which says: This column has been blanked because, in retrospect, it failed to make its intended point, while causing pain to other editors. The text is available in the page history. -- Ununseti (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete (copied from Meta) These messages about "censoring" are very misguided, and instead they boil down to "we should not have standards at all". And moreover, "Wikipedia is not censored" doesn’t even describe relationship between editors. For example, if I will call any editor a very strong and offensive word, I will be censored and banned, and rightly so. If I do it on a different page with vague references, it will still be understood as such and likely censored, and rightly so.

Gotta love how free speech seemingly only is important because "I want to hurt minorities and say slurs". So much for "I didn’t want to offend" by doubling down on every possible point of offence... --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Keep but leave blanked While many have mentioned "censorship of journalism", journalistic outlets and other media outlets have also often published retractions and prevented material from being reprinted (ie. Disney has never released Song of the South on home media in the US). Newspapers have in the past publicly apologized and disowned offensive content they have published without deleting it. So, better to leave the page up but leave it blanked and insert some sort of official statement from the Signpost team. My opinion of the article's content and its editors is perhaps best reserved for another venue. Pinguinn 🐧 00:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment User:Fae has recommended that should a decision to delete be made here, the identical userpage article should also be deleted. I disagree because the consensus is different for the two pages. The current consensus for the Signpost article seems to be "delete", while the consensus for the userspace article seems to be "keep". Some users have explicitly stated that they support the deletion of the Signpost article but not necessarily the userspace article.Leugen9001 (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep While I empathize with the feelings of those who oppose this column, Wikipedia should not be censored to accommodate peoples' feelings. This column seems to be a genuine attempt at humor rather than transphobia as some claim, and does make a valid point about the evolving (mis-)usage of pronouns. Elspamo4 (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion (refactored)

And since I'm making this header, I'll say that the above has only strengthened my view. Much of the above would be perfect for illustrating the definition of jeremiad. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It’d do pretty good for signal response, too, and that’s the real problem. When people’s brains stop working when they see certain words, trouble will follow, it’s only a question of how soon. Qwirkle (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I recognize that your comment above is not another !vote but it still seems pretty shitty for you to take another opportunity to restate your own opinion here. ElKevbo (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Autistic screeching Never mind, that's not a protected class on Wikipedia Someone eventually had to, and I figure the closer of this mess can appropriately weigh my comments. Besides, if a group of fundie Christians on Wikipedia claimed to be "offended" at... something... at the Signpost, I'm sure you'd support deletion of the "offensive" comment. Actually, I don't at all, I think there's enough cognitive dissonance that the majority of the community would be pissing their pants laughing that they "offended" the right people. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm as hardcore and anti-religion as it gets in my personal life, but if I saw a "humour" piece published in the Signpost that started with "I worship dead zombie jews, look at me I wear silly hats, let's rape some virgins lololololol", I'd be with the Christians asking for a retraction. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I endorse Headbomb's remark, with a caveat. That kind of mockery is utterly inappropriate on Wikipedia. At least in the hypothetical, the mockery is directed at a dominant ideology. In this case, the mockery is directed against one of the weakest and most marginalized and most persecuted groups in society worldwide. There is nothing more contemptible than punching down. Nothing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I'll keep my Lenny Bruce. And the people this is actually commenting on, those who would force all kinds of neologisms onto Wikipedia, are all too often not the marginalized ones themselves. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• WP:General attacks. ~ R.T.G 15:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC) Laughter is a response to perceiving the ridiculous. Some laughter is said to have an expense. Wikipedia is free though. ~ R.T.G 00:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Is the so-called Signpost a newspaper or only some internal stuff ?

The Wikipedia article The Signpost describes the said Signpost as a newspaper for real, with a "newspaper" infobox, etc. etc. If this is true, then WP:Miscellany_for_deletion has nothing to say about this newspaper, the applicable rules being the laws about the publishing business. On the contrary, if the said Signpost is under the rule of WP:Miscellany_for_deletion, then it is not a newspaper and the WP article is only a pile of pompous assertions, that should be corrected. Pldx1 (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Pldx1: It doesn't matter, because the Signpost is hosted on the English Wikipedia, regardless of whether or not it is considered a newspaper. The Wikimedia Foundation ultimately has control over its own servers; and presumably, since the English Wikipedia community is mostly self-governed, the Signpost may be subject to the community's policies and guidelines by virtue of being part of the English Wikipedia. Jc86035 (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost's well-sourced article defines it as a newspaper in the first sentence. Newspapers are almost always editorially independent of their umbrella ownership, and this seems further proof that the first amendment principles should apply. Overlapping with WP:CENSOR, there doesn't seem any other way to close this than keep, and maybe at that point the author will think about withdrawing the page, which he has indicated he may do. But no blame, shame, or finger pointing should be shown anyone here, everyone seems to be acting in good faith. The author has described his viewpoint very well, and reading the article once again from that viewpoint makes sense. Pointofviewist comments on all sides seem heartfelt, as they should, but another point of view sees the first amendment as real which means, as mentioned above, that Signpost articles can't be subject to Wikipedia's deletion process. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia has no "higher court" for most issues, arguments of illegitimacy are never successful unless a majority are swayed by them. No closer is going to close against the numbers on the basis of this argument. I think it's unfortunate that under our system all editors are simultaneously advocates and judges (see conflict of interest), but it is what it is. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

There is almost no issue at Wikipedia ever for which "there is no other way to close this" can be played as a trump card designed to short circuit discussion. In the case of this discussion, we have two completely valid and completely policy-based positions which are under discussion, and we'll see which way consensus goes. In the case of this discussion, those two policy-based positions center around WP:CENSOR and related policies on one side and WMF:Non-discrimination policy on the other. What people need to come to terms with is whether it is more important that out language is inclusive and non-discriminatory or whether our language is free and open. There is a natural tension there, and neither policy "wins". There is a continuum here, and people have to decide where in the great broad middle between "we should allow all speech, including hurtful, bigoted, and harassing speech" and "we should only allow a set list of things to be said, and should delete anything not on that list". It isn't helpful to characterize the other position (than one's own) as being only at one of those extremes. Instead, people here are trying to find where, in the nuanced tension between allowing all people to feel welcome and allowing all people to express themselves without fear of reprisal. Saying "this can only go one way, because I found this one policy here" ignores all of the other policies in tension with that one. There are no trump cards at Wikipedia. There is only discussion and consensus building. --Jayron32 19:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually all a closer has to do is read The Signpost article, determine if Wikipedia recognizes it as a notable on-line newspaper, then apply first amendment principles to it and find that no The Signpost article can be deleted under "Misc. for deletion" parameters. That and/or take WP:CENSOR at its word. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

One could just as easily say "all the closer had to do is...take WMF:Non-discrimination policy at its word". Furthermore, your lack of understanding of what the First Amendment to the U.S. Consitution means seriously undermines your argument here. It doesn't mean that an organization is forced to publish all writing submitted to it. It only means that the government cannot stop said organization from publishing that information if they choose to. In this case, it doesn't require that editorial decisions at Wikipedia cannot be made ever; that Wikipedia is bound to publish every proposed bit of writing that comes its way. We (the community writ large) are the editorial decision makers for what goes on here at the Wikipedia, and we're allowed (as a community) to decide whether we should or should not allow some writing here. The First Amendment has nothing to do with that. Editorial decisions by organizations such as Wikipedia have nothing at all to do with the First Amendment. Invoking it here doesn't help your position, it undermines it because it shows you don't know what you're talking about. Making statements that cast doubts as to your own competence undermines any potentially valid points you may have to make. --Jayron32 19:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I would argue that virtually all editors will deem more important the policy that supports their position, which arises from personal viewpoints independent from policy. We decide what we want, and then we go find policy to support it, rather than the reverse. And policy is sufficiently rich to support A or !A for virtually any proposition. Way meta of course, but let me know when there is any community will to confront these foundational issues and I'll go there. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the positions define the policies, or the policies define the positions, the tension is real, and the discussion and consensus building is vital, towards reaching a community decision.--Jayron32 20:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Democratic voting with a lot of policy window dressing per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Either the process is legitimate (even with its flaws) and you participate in it, or it isn't and you propose a different process that would be legitimate and let's all do that. If you're not interested in doing either, in what way are you being useful?--Jayron32 21:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I put out feelers from time to time (say twice a year), and there is never any traction at all. There is a strong tendency to defend status quo for even the most trivial issue, let alone something huge like this. I know when such a proposal would be a waste of my time. That doesn't mean I zip it 100% of the time, and there's just a chance that I might get a few people to think on such things in their sleep. That would be more "useful" than helping decide whether a humor page stays or goes, in my view. Anyway, I have "participated in it". ―Mandruss ☎ 21:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Jayron32 21:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost is either a newspaper or it isn't. I'm going by its Wikipedia page that calls it an online newspaper. In that case, at least in the U.S., the editors have the right to decide what is printed or not printed in their publication. We, as Wikipedia editors, can advise but should we have the power to delete? That is what I mean by the first amendment right to free press, and, as I've said elsewhere, if Freedom of the Press doesn't apply here legally it at least applies here in spirit. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a perfectly legitimate position to claim that the Signpost should be treated as a safe space to write provocative things, and then to come up with reasons why that should be so. The US Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with it, at all. Nothing. Stop going down that road, and find other ways to defend your position. Your position is defensible, just not by invoking that.--Jayron32 20:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The closer isn't the United States Congress, nor are their poweres granted by Congress, so the First Admendment says absolutely nothing about whether the closer can accurately judge whether or not the Wikipedia community feels that certain content is appropriate to host or not. There is no automatic right to publication granted by the Bill of Rights just because something is considered a newspaper. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I partly come from a journalistic background, and in journalism the publisher isn't responsible for the contents of the newspaper, the named editors of the publication decide what is or is not included. If The Signpost is to remain a reputable online newspaper it cannot be censored by this community, which adheres to different rules than traditional newspaper independence. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

If the Signpost is a "reputable online newspaper"--I'm skeptical of that claim to say the least, but I digress--such that isn't subject to Wikipedia policy, then Wikipedia has no obligation, and certainly no First Amendment obligation, to host the publication on its own server space. The Signpost is free to publish its content by printing it out and distributing it on paper if it wishes, but while it's published on Wikipedia's server space, it'll need to play by Wikipedia's rules. Deleting the Signpost page isn't violating its First Amendment right to free press for exactly the same reason that deleting someone's user page doesn't violate their First Amendment right to free speech. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Raising your point does not need a subtitle. The nomination includes WP:Harassment, WMF:Non-discrimination policy and WMF:Terms of Use, all apply to Signpost pages and Signpost contributors without exception. --Fæ (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

note: I moved the section here from intermingled among !votes. Having discussions intermingled with the votes was making the thread unreadable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Is an MfD allowed to override our WP:NOTCENSORED policy?

I just re-read Wikipedia:Deletion policy again, compared it with the reasons given for deletion above, and I can't find the reasons given above anywhere in the deletion policy. I can however, find the above reasons for deletion mentioned in WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored:

"Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia."

I can also find them in Wikipedia:Offensive material:

"Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers."

If I remember correctly we had a lot of votes in favor of deleting all images of Mohamed, and many of the arguments in favor of deletion in that case resemble the arguments above. In that case, our policy on censorship triumphed the fact that multiple editors were deeply offended. And rightly so. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

lol. How often vandals do make this argument? "Deleting my userpage advertising my business and/or beef with another editor is censorship!!1", "undoing my edit saying this senator supports baby-killers is censorship!!1", "deleting my article on this non-notable activist I like is censorship!!1"... -sche (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The mainspace is WP:NOTCENSORED, to the extent that we describe topics in an encyclopedic manner, regardless of people's personal sensitivities. Wikipedia will, for example, include quotes presenting uncensored hate speech, racism, vulgarities and the like, as well as various non-mainstream viewpoints. It does, however, present those things in an encyclopedic manner.

Wikipedia, however, is very much censored in the sense of WP:NOTFREESPEECH, including personal attacks, attacks on a community, libel, hate speech, defamation, vandalism, patently offensive material, and the like. This WP:NOTFREESPEECH policy applies to be in mainspace and in metaspace to anything that the Wikipedia community judges is not in the best interest of the community.

The Signpost is the newspaper of the community, on the community's behalf. This does not mean that writers and contributors are prohibited from expressing viewpoints that are contrary to the majority's. If someone had an essay disagreeing with something like say Wikipedia:Systemic bias, even a 'humourous' one that mocked certain stereotypes about professors in the Western world//Eastern world, there would be no outcry. However, the Wikipedia community would be well within its rights to censor the Signpost if that essay called for the violent overthrow of Western universities, or painted medical editors as being vultures in the pockets of big pharma that edits Wikipedia to maximize children suffering in order to increase the personal profit they stand to make treating sick children, in violation of the Hippocratic oath many of them took.

Here The Signpost, and I'm going to say out of profound ignorance more than malice, published a piece that is patently offensive and that attacked and marginalized a group of people that is one of the most oppressed minorities in the world. This clearly legally defensible as free speech, and no one is calling for the jailing of Signpost authors and editors. It might be even defensible as the misguided views of a lone editor deep in his personal userspace. But this is completely indefensible as something that is acceptable to publish in The Signpost, whose purpose is to

1. ... to inform the community about events that affect and are affected by the Wikimedia movement
2. ... a wish to entertain ... [with] objectivity as would be appropriate for an independent media organization elsewhere
3. ... to present ideas, publish community research, and draw attention to a cause before both the English Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia movement more broadly

This piece isn't defensible under #1 and #3, and the response from the community makes it clear it has massively failed under #2. If the Signpost isn't willing to retract the piece, only one option remains to Wikipedians: deletion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

You mean "patently offensive" to you and indefensible to you. Clearly that view is far from universal. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, but it does not need to be universal. It does not work that way. Thanks for spitting on a lot of editors. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The bar for whether something is defensible isn't whether or not some people fail to be offended. Sex slavers have no qualms about selling humans. Nazis had their supporters. That doesn't mean sex trafficking or Nazism are defensible things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

...aaaand we have a Godwin. Plus, typing some words on a website is not at all "spitting on" anyone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Invoking Godwin's law does not absolve you from criticism. You need to own it. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I have heard and owned it, and I don't find the argument convincing. That's all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

And I'm going to drop a hint, using your own words: it is not convincing to you. That's all. We can end here. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Except that, unlike the above, I actually spoke for me; I claimed to speak for no one other than me, and substituted no objective criteria for my personal judgment. Therein lies the distinction. I, too, will happily move along. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

However, you are missing a key point here. In saying «You mean "patently offensive" to you and indefensible to you» you spoke for someone else. Here's a big distinction, that resulted in a lapse of judgment. So there's finally a moment where we can move along. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. I won't bother unpacking this further. In the end, this particular page isn't all that huge a deal to me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding "own it": Accepting criticism does not equate to assenting censorship; they're entirely unrelated concepts. A strong argument can be made that this should not be deleted, because doing so would hide the controversy and make all this commentary meaningless. If consensus ends up being that Signpost should not have run this piece, it will never be clear to anyone but today's participants on this page what the issue was – what decision was reached, or why. It would thus be a self-defeating action.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding '"patently offensive" to you and indefensible to you': Yep. These policies can't be triggered because a directly canvassed cluster of editors who all share the same mindset are choosing to take offense via their own willful misinterpretations of something that says nothing like what they claim it says. That qualifies as neither patently offensive nor indefensible, just perhaps "apparently likely to trigger a particular camp of editors into making false claims about some else's motivations for writing something they would have phrased differently".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The piece may be defensible under #3, as it expresses an opinion on the use of nonstandard gender neutral pronouns as a matter of writing style. Leugen9001 (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly right. It didn't attack and marginalize a group of people. It made fun of language activism claiming to speak for that group. And the main person complaining clearly does not feel either attacked and marginalized. They appear to be in a fighting mood, and are determined to win at any cost. as evidenced by the canvassing and trying to get the author fired from a techical position on another project. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)